positive64BitIntegerFor return type is declared sqLong, but should be sqInt (it returns an oop).
I forgot to tell this was in COG branch. This file is generated, and the type is inferred from InterpreterProxy>>positive64BitIntegerFor: I guess that a correct returnTypeC:#sqInt annotation is missing here.
2013/12/31 Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com
positive64BitIntegerFor return type is declared sqLong, but should be sqInt (it returns an oop).
2013/12/31 Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com
I forgot to tell this was in COG branch. This file is generated, and the type is inferred from InterpreterProxy>>positive64BitIntegerFor: I guess that a correct returnTypeC:#sqInt annotation is missing here.
The question is why using InterpreterProxy from the plugin code generator?
I find it strange to scatter (and duplicate) C-generation hints in a code that is not intended to be C-generated...
2013/12/31 Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com
positive64BitIntegerFor return type is declared sqLong, but should be sqInt (it returns an oop).
Hi Nicolas,
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/12/31 Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com
I forgot to tell this was in COG branch. This file is generated, and the type is inferred from InterpreterProxy>>positive64BitIntegerFor: I guess that a correct returnTypeC:#sqInt annotation is missing here.
The question is why using InterpreterProxy from the plugin code generator?
I find it strange to scatter (and duplicate) C-generation hints in a code that is not intended to be C-generated...
The problem is that the InterpreterProxy interface wasn't well-documented in Smalltalk. Instead the definitive code is in platforms/Cross/vm/sqVirtualMachine.[ch]. I think it is better to have InterpreterProxy define the return types (via the pragmas) and to use these definitions for tests. See VMInterfaceConsistencyTests>>#testInterpreterProxyInterface.
Since the default return type is sqInt there's no pragma to specify it. But I agree it would be preferrable to be explicit.
2013/12/31 Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com
positive64BitIntegerFor return type is declared sqLong, but should be sqInt (it returns an oop).
2014/1/4 Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com
Hi Nicolas,
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/12/31 Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com
I forgot to tell this was in COG branch. This file is generated, and the type is inferred from InterpreterProxy>>positive64BitIntegerFor: I guess that a correct returnTypeC:#sqInt annotation is missing here.
The question is why using InterpreterProxy from the plugin code
generator? I find it strange to scatter (and duplicate) C-generation hints in a code that is not intended to be C-generated...
The problem is that the InterpreterProxy interface wasn't well-documented in Smalltalk. Instead the definitive code is in platforms/Cross/vm/sqVirtualMachine.[ch]. I think it is better to have InterpreterProxy define the return types (via the pragmas) and to use these definitions for tests. See VMInterfaceConsistencyTests>>#testInterpreterProxyInterface.
Since the default return type is sqInt there's no pragma to specify it. But I agree it would be preferrable to be explicit.
Currently, it's not preferable, it's mandatory because the return type is inferred as sqLong which is incorrect.
2013/12/31 Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com
positive64BitIntegerFor return type is declared sqLong, but should be sqInt (it returns an oop).
-- best, Eliot
vm-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Eliot Miranda -
Nicolas Cellier